RBS remuneration on the rocks
It's not just Sir Fred Goodwin whose pension pot is hugely controversial.
His successor at the Royal Bank of Scotland, appointed with the support of the majority shareholder, Her Majesty's Government, is also under fire for a £5m shareholding.
Next week, the government gets to flex its considerable muscle on pay and pensions.
While its (supposedly) arm's-length shareholding agency, UK Financial Investments, is not saying how it will vote at the Royal Bank's annual general meeting in Edinburgh, a statement does hint at a 'no' vote on the remuneration committee report.
That would at least register a protest at the Goodwin pension.
The problem it faces in taking that nuclear option on pay is that it could impact on more than 170,000 RBS staff.
"UKFI has made abundantly clear its profound opposition to the decision of the former board to enhance Sir Fred Goodwin's pension and has agreed with RBS that every legal avenue for redress must be explored," said a UKFI spokeswoman this morning.
"The vote on remuneration runs much wider across a bank with 170,000 employees and UKFI will make its voting decision in due course".
It could be politically difficult for UKFI to vote in favour of the Royal Bank's remuneration committee report, particularly as independent advisers to other shareholders are recommending a 'no' vote.
Of the two most influential analysts advising institutional investors, the Association of British Insurers has put an alert warning on the remuneration committee report (it doesn't recommend votes to those it advises), while the Pensions Investment Research Consultants (PIRC) is recommending its clients to vote against.
It is unlikely this could stop Sir Fred's pension deal, but it would force a re-think of the package agreed with Stephen Hester, the new chief executive.
His pay packet was agreed under the government's shareholding watch.
To compensate Mr Hester for shares he held in the company he previously led, British Land, he was handed nearly £5m worth of RBS shares.
He doesn't even have to achieve any performance targets to have access to that investment.
PIRC has "serious concerns" about the nature of this non-incentivised deal, saying there should instead be "challenging and transparent performance conditions".
It is also unhappy about the shareholding incentive awaiting new RBS chairman Sir Philip Hampton, that could bring him twice his annual salary, meaning £1.5m.
That is deemed to tie his incentives too closely to those of senior management.
For Sir Philip's predecessor, Sir Tom McKillop, more bad news looms.
The Treasury select committee is, this afternoon, to decide on whether it wants to summon him again to explain the deal he did with Sir Fred Goodwin on enhancing the former chief executive's pension package at the same time the company was heading for collapse.
And he is also under pressure at BP where, as a non-executive director of the energy giant, he is on both the remuneration committee and even the ethics committee.
Incredibly, he's standing for re-election at the AGM next month.
According to the BP board's recommendation: "Sir Tom brings capabilities and expertise within the areas of international business".
He certainly brings experience, though not necessarily the kind you would want.